The final piece from END:CIV is both a reality check and a call to arms. Can we really expect the power structures to change their destructive ways by asking nicely? Do we have unlimited time to stop the destruction of the planet? The answer to both questions is no. If we are serious about defending the biosphere and abolishing the institutions responsible for the hyper exploitation of the land, we have to become a resistance movement and go beyond “feel good” symbolic actions.

Great video, I agree mostly. But what I see more is millions upon millions in disagreement. I believe in an armed populace able to resist oppression in any form. However, the majority of the world believe in civilization, An attempt to remove their will from them(the majority) to remove their programming which most of them enjoy and use violent tactics to do so is no different than any terrorist organization.

I’m no dupe, I am well aware of the power structure on this planet, who’s got control, what families and corporation have which politicians and media outlets in their pockets, but the people who work and struggle every day, the majority, are just trying to find happiness and success. That is something they will feel robbed of and they will support the Power Pyramids attempst to crush such an opposition.

As well, what is your remedy for all the worlds ills? There is no solution here, only talk of fighting back. Great, now we need a solution that the people can agree with and desire as much as they desire what they are trying to get in our current society. hat are the rules? are there any? how will the unfed be fed, and who will teach them to live off the land? What will we do with all the waste left after the war? There would be much too much. Dead bodies, buildings, indurtial complexes.

Every little detail needs to be covered for it to be an understandable, change for the people to be with you. Otherwise it’s a losing battle and only your mircocosmic threat by example would be better than killing in the name of your cause.

@Rman, it’s good to see someone not completely agree with everything in END:CIV, this is the sort of thing that needs to exist for a better a future.
But I need to say that a solution is not necessary now, if we are to debate about what solutions and rules we would never be able to get anywhere, nevertheless inprement those solutions if we don’t take action first. It is necessary to create the chance to use those alternative solutions first through revolt and whatnot.
As much as the powers that be say that supporting this current system we allow you to follow your happiness and success, it is not true. In fact continuing this system will lead to the depletion of all resources, and where is consumer culture where there isn’t any product, this would ultimately lead economical collapse, where of course no one will be able to follow their happiness and success.
What need is an alternative, which of course is something I hope we could implement after a successful revolution.

Thank you too Fatima! mk, well put but the problem with revolution first is we do not know what the end result is or what it could be because there would be no system in place. For a complete over haul and an “end of civilization” there would have to be a plan because Civilizations been here a long, long time. Again, there would be an entire world of people against such a revolt. Billions against what would now only be thousands. With every resistance crushing resource at their disposal.

You would have to have a global population majority. For whatever reason, whatever people think are the reasons people would resist “greed, fear, comfort, resistance to change, complete opposition philosophically, etc” What this line of thought is doing is no different than a terrorist recruitment video.

I would certainly take this more seriously if there was reconstruction plan. A logical, plausible, feesable, sane and civil plan to restructure that everyone or the majority could get behind.

Everyone will never get behind it because that’s not everyone’s idea of success, of the way things should be and their idea of a happy existence.

I agree the world is in trouble, serous trouble but one SMALL group of people can’t go around recruiting others to basically fight a guerilla war in hopes of over turning an entire world of industry, military, finance, media, and people, just people who just want to live and do not see things the way we do.

People who’s minds could have been changed to look on the movement as positive would instead look at the movement negatively.

The only places this COULD take off are places where people are actually in real time, being brutalized by their governments. Maybe hit them with a revolt and restructure plan and help those in desperate life threatening need change their station and improve their lives. That could snowball into other places of oppression and could create a movement of consciousness globally because the globe or “free world” is watching the positive change happening in those places and see benefits of the philosphy in their own countries.

If there is no Reconstruction plan that should appease the majority, then that just means that the people of this movement do not have the answers and people will not follow them.

12k bullets……tmarra the power would be gone. All the minions would mill around like bees without a queen. Violence makes violence. The only way to deal with the people in charge is with relentless, naked aggression. On their own terms, and these monsters at the top of civilisation, are cowards, sacrificing mindless robots to keep themselves safe.

We don’t have to fight the whole world, we just have to eliminate the ones at the top. Vampiric parasites living in seclusion, and complete isolation from the rest of humanity. They only come out to satisfy their own blood~lust, and homicidal needs.

There is no need to talk further until everyone gets their heads around this: The cop on the corner is only your enemy because someone else told him you are his. When the voices that pit us against each other are gone, things will normalize.

Levels of sustainability must be reached, not a revolution.
Nature’s system is to be followed. There is no system to envision.

It is assumed we have already exceeded the planet’s capacity. There is no majority to appease. Create the downfall now, and yes, it will be devastating. Wait for it to happen on it’s own(because, yes, people are addicted to the system), and devastating will be too small a term to describe the consequences.

This is more to Jensen’s point, I believe, than what people have been talking about. I have just begun to look into Jensen’s ‘Endgame’, a book I highly recommend to understand his position.

I hope this helps.
We are consumed with being civilized. We make aboriginal terms sound derogatory and backward. Civilization has tortured people for thousands of years, but aboriginal living allowed people to prosper for 100s of thousands of years. Why does it all just seem obvious to me?

Jamie, thanks for that but that is not an answer to the question. Seems people are just saying FUCK YEAH lets tear down the system and they have no system in place to deal with the shit storm left over.

RE Aboriginal living. I agree native peoples of old had systems in which they lived that worked well enough. However, you still have to contend with billions, not millions of people who want civilization. A few thousand Eco warriors against billions of people will not bring anything down. You have to win minds, not take them forcefully. Taking by force from the majority is on par with Facism.

Like I said, help a small country in need of being freed of their oppressive regime, develop a model for the world in that country. Then others might follow and or you will win minds in the so called civilized countries. But taking by force is Facist. Scare tactics are terrorism.

There’s a lot of sloganeering here and still no clear, logical, sane answer to the problem of civilization. I expect the people who run shit to be smarter than I am and present answers not rhetoric.

And you don’t suppose we’re subjected to terrorism by our current systems? Western civilization itself revolves around fear. We sit in our houses, separate ourselves from the outside world and our neighbors. God forbid anyone sees what we do behind closed doors. We buy products to hide our face, cover our bodies, and make us look like the people on t.v. To look more presentable for the faceless mass waiting just outside our door. We buy more food than we really need just to throw it away. Thank god for the “free market”, without it we’d all starve. Food does’nt grow on trees, that’s just ridiculous. We buy insurance for everything, things we don’t even really need, but feel like we would be lost without. Theres so much shit we just sell our lives away for to sit idle on our shelves and surfaces. Not really preforming any useful function, yet we still feel the need to buy them just to look at or be seen with. Anything to make us LOOK smarter or prettier or whatever. Nobody wants to feel like a “loser”. Our whole system revolves around the fear of not having something that we feel we “need”. But really we have everything we need right here in front of us, and always have. What are we going to do after we destroy it all?

Yes, on the net especially you’ll see people of all sorts. A lot of people talking about a lot of things. I’ll try to respond to your paragraphs.

A few thousand eco warriors would do a great deal more than I think you see. Nothing is to be taken forcefully or not. Value is simply being given to non-economic factors. For example, salmon will and are simply disappearing because of very real things like dams. No one is taking them back down. They are building more. Therefore, taking down a dam would be saving the salmon, saving your food supply. The result of the dam going, and the loss of it to the people who started using it, is their own loss; their own fault for taking what wasn’t theirs, and what ultimately destroys and destabilizes entire swaths of the planet.

The earth needs to exist, this is not a political debate on how society should exist. Certain portions of society have taken it upon themselves to cleave this planet bare. No responsibility. And, there are certain portions of society who have taken it upon themselves to stop this. Total responsibility.

This is not a war or revolution as you see it. It is an act of mind. An act of mind to stop a child from being hit. An act of mind to stop people from destroying the land. If the person won’t listen to reason and goes to strike the child again, you stop them.

Sorry for the double post, but I think I realize there are a couple points you are not starting from Rman.

Removing physical structures that are destroying the earth more immediately represents this movement than does these ideas of political or social revolution.

To come to the conclusion that this removal is necessary, one must have come to the conclusion that; 1. The earth is going down; 2. No one is stopping it within the current institutions.

Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame” is a large work separated into two books. The first argues why civilization itself is an uncontrollably destructive force. The second argues why resistance is necessary.

I don’t think that you see your own pacifist sloganeering. What point would you make that suggests a different view of civilization? What point would you make that the earth is not becoming uninhabitable for humanity?

The thing that kills me is that the ‘Endgame’ philosophy of sorts is that it is civilization that uses force and terrorist measures to take what it wants(everything), when it wants(all the time), and that an enlightened person’s job would be to simply resist the destruction. Yet, like a good civilized corporate political fascist you attempt to turn the tables and call Derrick a fascist?

Sort of like raping the middle east for decades and then labeling people(binLaden) who resist with your own destructive patterns(terror).

Rman I totally agree with you, and Jamie you seem like an intelligent person but this is the exact same appeal as things like CrimeThink and the rest of face value anarchism in its ten billion variations. I had a friend who I use to debate with who’s father was a Black Panther and who’s mother was a poor white girl that lived on the ede of SF, he grew up in the Tenderloin which for you who don’t know isn’t the greatest expierence and it made him angry. We would go back and forth to no end before all this was “popular” about armed revolution or what things like this film would call “direct action” and you always come back to the same point- You want the noble idea of saving a child from being hit as an analogy to the ecological destruction to overcome the reality of what you’re asking for which is genoside. And just like many of the people who get wrapped up in this without fully thinking it through take any argument as pacifism, are yoy kidding me do you hear yourself? you all who are so quick to take up arms, you ever killed anyone? Since this is so necessary and logical let’s see just how you react when the blood starts being spilled it’s absolutly ridiculous. You want destruction so bad then realize it’s going to happen naturally, to grow, maintain and harvest your own food is hard enough it takes trial and error, a working knowledge of the animate landscape which is exactly where the future is going. We are facing eminant changes in the way we live our lives and those you cannot learn to POSITIVELY affect the world around them and care for themselves and those they love as a basis for extending compassionate and action oriented community will perish anyway- throwing around juevanile angst and supporting the exact same violence that has gotten us into these complicated problems will do exactly what none of you like to admit= lead us right down the same path. Violence is an endless cycle so you go ahead and revolt and see how long once your revolution is done it will take to comprimise other morals as well.

how about doing something revolutionary that takes a lot more work than pulling a fucking trigger or breaking out store windows at “protests” How about being a good mother or father, how about going out and teaching our youth that they can rely on the bounty of the earth and it IS a choice not to be dwarfed by technological enslavement? How about focusing on beauty for fucksake, it also seems a bit ironic that earlier thoughts are forgotten, why don’t some of you go back and read the Orion article “beyond hope” and look at how Jensen talks about violence there before you go looking at the cop down the street and pick a fight so you can feel revolutionary.

If spreading the seed of agression is the only way to end the problems we face, if after all the ages of men and women and the beauty of inpiration, evolution, cultural diffusion and the human spirit in its ability to overcome and appreciate the world around it then we are lost anyway and maybe that’s for the best- but I don’t buy that and never will, I stand proudly next to those who choose to be a positive and honorable example of how to live a sustainable life and if I perish so be it but I’ll have done so with honesty and passion for the gratitude in each breath.

The problem is, I am living on 5 acres with my wife, in a 30ft dome, full member of the local CSA, chickens in our yard and dogs to tend off the more persistent wildlife that I’d rather not shoot if they don’t leave the chickens alone. Life is pretty simple. Aside from a little propane and a monthly trip for some things at the store, we’re almost there, unhooked. And it was easy Dane, so stop trying to scare people off talking about how hard it is, live in your own fear, don’t spread it.

But then comes a water company couple years ago. They want to bottle water in the town over. This would have destroyed our water base as it has in many areas around here. All to hydrate the city. Thank god they moved on for now. I haven’t even looked into the legislation lately. These people would have wiped out my way of life and no number of educated little children would have helped a thing.

Jensen offers an alternative I have never seen before. But from what I have seen, I can say you have chosen to bypass a couple very important points, and have taken some things he brings up to simply discredit them, not disprove.(ie. You say violence does nothing, he actually took the time to show that it has achieved a great deal and in his words, “that’s why they use it”) I too am very focused on my own peace of mind for my own reasons. I’ve spent my whole life in a strongly pacifist state, resigned to watch the world go down, because, in a way, much of what Jensen says is preaching to the choir for me. But then he proposes an alternative. Nothing I’ve seen thus far lacks reason. His facts are clear, his philosophy solidly grounded with historical integrity. Honestly, I’m no scholar, Chomsky might be better to comment on Jensen’s work. But then you probably think the worlds greatest living intellect is crazy too. I’m only interested in real life answers to real life problems.

But if I may Dane, your view of violence I’ve come to see is somewhat erroneous. Violence is not an endless cycle, civilization is. From civilization comes violence. To take down a dam is survival. Dane, your sensitivity to violence threw me for a bit because it is naive. I’m sorry. You’re telling me you don’t wear clothes made from the hands of children? Don’t drive a car with oil that came from the blood of others? etc, etc, etc. To be honest Dane, as someone who was raised in Saudi Arabia, and who is now a commercial family fisherman who is constantly at risk of being crushed by corporations draining the ocean, I see all of it. I used to thank the fish that came on the boat. Last few years, I ask them to forgive. Kill someone? Me? I’ve killed an awful lot for you people who speak against it. When the ocean comes and wipes out the homes of the idiots who built them there on the shore will it be the oceans fault, or theirs? If someone blew a dam so they could keep eating the salmon their forefathers had will it be the natives fault, or theirs?

This aggression you speak of is the last thing I need. But if the time comes Dane, people like me will hold up our hand and say stop, say no. Will they come back for the water? Will I resist? In this civilization, I need not be aggressive, because I know if I hold up my hand, the aggression will come to me, ten fold. And this is why I fear, your just scared Dane. And it’s ok. It really is. I’ve seen what these men do overseas when they want something, I’ve seen right here on my shores what they’ll do if the want what we have. They are psychotic, they murder. There is no description. They just do it. So it’s ok to be scared, I am frightened too. I feel though, if I want to show my gratitude, to all of this, as you suggested, then no, I will TRUELY thank it, stand beside it, and hold up my hand. Not cower, you’ll never convince me to cower in the naivety that what is going on around here is not very obvious, and very stoppable.

I’m sure those in this film have heard this before but I feel I need to make the following point.

I have a hard time taking people very serious who I believe are not even physically capable of physically overpowering a single cop. Sorry, call me a macho naysayer but I am not going to be following anyone who I think can’t handle themselves in a simple fight, let alone into a situation where there is going to be an exchange of gunfire.

If the system collapses I like my chances much better with my hunting buddies or street gang cousins than I do from some vegetarian, organic garden manlets who couldn’t lift a hundred pounds if their life depended on it. That’s common sense to me.

Good reading here… I don’t have anything to offer, to change this, to convince anyone… I can’t resolve the contradictions or make the tension lift, to claer the air.

So why am I writing?

I just have a simple observation, which is that I don’t live in north america or europe, I live in central américa.

It is my opinion that not one of my neighbors would have the slightest interest in anything being said here, except to echo the obvious truth that the earth is tired, and maybe to go one further and say that the end is not near, it is here.

People who speak english and spend hours on the internet, watching and writing… we don’t connect very well with these neighbors of mine.

They’re mostly “farmers” or that is, they raise chickens, use machetes, pick coffee, herd cattle… they eat rice and beans, they ride buses to jobs if they can get them and keep them if they can… they don’t want to smash windows or blow up dams because… those are just things that seem so far off the mark, no one ever filled one of their children’s bellies like that.

“Civilization” and “History,” violence and pacifism… concepts in general are not the coin of the realm is all I can say.

Strangely enough, living in Southern Maine, USA, I too have neighbors who think the same, for similar reasons. Even though life is completely different, what you bring up is something that has sat in my mind for some time now.

But many resources in the US are still here. They can be saved. Unlike many poorer countries, many resources here have not been razed to nothing by some first world power. And if I’m not mistaken, the US was that power in many cases. And what if the US began respecting it’s own resources? Would this not benefit its disgusting world policies? What would start to wake it up? I agree that these ‘concepts’ are not words to be used with everyone. But I’ve found that, instead of,’hey listen to what I read’, I tell people in my own words and life what I see, I find that I make more sense.

Perhaps there are words that your neighbors would understand? I too am looking for the words for my neighbors.

This isn’t just bad, it’s comically bad. It’s atrocious. It’s the worst kind of economically illiterate, conspiracy-mongering, doom-selling. Almost inconceivably, the above just doesn’t say it. I can’t figure out how to effectively express just how retarded and counter-productive this kind of garbage is. I would be laughing were you not essentially advocating violent terrorism against the civilization you have so obviously failed within, and are now rebelling against in a puffed-up, puerile defense-mechanism. Ideologues like this are crippled by malignant narcissism. In fact, some of the role-reversals amount to the biggest feats of narcissism I’ve come across. The cherry here is that these people actually believe they’re the thoughtful, “conscious” minority, when the reality is they’re an appropriately marginalized proto-cult made up mostly of social misfits who, as we see with this video, are now literally threats to the people around them.

I have no harsh words for you N., you’ve already stated that you, “can’t figure out how to effectively express” yourself. But if you could, without sounding like Pat Buchanan railing against abortion, speak more about your perspective, I’d be interested in understanding your viewpoint. At the moment, you’ve used some very large words to describe, well, nothing. Which is rather ironic considering your initial stance here.

I think I disagree a little with Aric when he says in the film that “One of the things that we really have to accept and internalize is that the majority of institutions and the majority of people are never going to be on our side”.

This sounds defeatist, and makes it seem like the ideas presented in the film are so unpalatable that few people in their right mind would accept them. But in order to truly transform the world, it is precisely the majority of people who are going to have to change their minds about what constitutes the good life. Only sheer numbers will ultimately create a tipping point. And there has to be a belief that wide-scale change is possible. Otherwise, what’s the point? Every social movement starts off with a minority, but unless it reaches critical mass, the movement remains marginalized.

Today in Germany, it is the minority who think National Socialism was a positive thing, the exact opposite of 70 years ago. So history shows that majorities can turn into minorities, and vice versa. That’s why I think Aric is being too bleak. Things change.

Al Gore’s doc is so inaccurate it was taken to court….its science fiction as stated by the judge. the planet has been through alot worse than us…George Carling. ive spent alot of time in university studying global warming iv come to the conclusion that its scientificly impossible….i have alot of evidence to support this.

So fed up with seeing so many beaten in the streets… Up against the payed Storm Troopers… Choke them from their soul… Paper with pics of men with white powdered wigs… Beaten in Vietnam. Korea, Iraq & Afghanistan… & still they the kill uncontrollably… The Gorilla is in your pocket… Separate the Beast from their Messiah’s

Save the planet? You’ve got to be kidding me. The planet doesn’t need any saving. The planet has been around for billions of years, it’s gone through supervolcano eruptions, multiple asteroid impacts, solar flares, recurring ice ages, continental drift, pole shifts and a whole slew of other stuff FAR WORSE than human industrial civilization. On top of that, time means nothing to nature. 100,000 years is like a microsecond in geological time.

I understand your point, but this does not change the fact that humanity is killing thousands of species every hour. Plants and animals are part of the planet that needs saving. Yep, the sphere may survive but life, human or otherwise may not. Maybe humanity should commit suicide for the sake of the rest of life on earth.

Part of the problem is that folks confuse civilization with all these trinkets: computers, iPods, automobiles, electric can openers … trinkets and technology is, as is becoming more and more clear to me, the very antithesis of civilization.

Civilization is how we treat one another.

How we treat the living environment or, more grandly, LIFE ITSELF, is in a mirror, how we treat one another.

I don’t want a “new boss same as the old boss” scheme to play out, I want to sane and just system to arise and I would like to know some of my own sweat is on the framework.

When my anger overcomes my good sense, then I want to start shooting. The problem is that “they” have better, bigger and more guns and plenty of goons trained to shoot them. Violence begets violence. I wonder, when “they” get desperate, will “they” resist pooping the nukes on us?

“They” are, of course, the power elite; the boys behind the armies and the industrial world.

The true aliens are NOT these mostly non-interfering dudes from outer space, but the aliens ARE what were formerly human beings who have completely lost touch with the Earth and even from LIFE itself.

All true, but I can’t support the call to violence. Not all revolutions are violent. It may be cliché but it’s important to remember Gandhi, MLK, the Velvet Revolution, and other non-violent revolutions, and even the most recent revolution in Egypt.

Expressing anger and frustration in effective ways can lead to change, can destroy the oppressor, can liberate.

Because the oppression of corporate states is much more sophisticated than the old militant oppressors, it calls for more sophisticated means of resistance, protest, and fighting back.

Getting a non-violent movement of hundreds of thousands of people – maybe millions of people – out on to the street and staying out on the streets until the regime changes would be much more effective than sporadic violent acts of rage.

This talk by Russell Means explains the reasons why movements keep repeating the same structures of oppression. This also explains why there are still structures of abuse and oppression within activist circles and why nothing ever changes. This is why i dont trust “revolutions”: